• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump leading narrowly in Texas (UH, CBS polls)

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to CBS' Battleground Tracker and the University of Houston's latest poll:

Hillary Clinton holds a three-point lead over Donald Trump in Florida, while in Texas – a state that has voted Republican by wide margins in recent years – Trump leads by a mere three points
In 2012 Republicans won a double-digit victory in Texas, as they often do; it’s one of the most reliably Republican states in the nation. Today Texas is close, and is more a story of Trump underperforming rather than Clinton over-performing typical Democrats, and why despite the tightness it may still be difficult for the Democrats to actually get those last points and win the state outright. Clinton is doing about as well with key groups as President Obama did in 2008, but Trump is under-performing the Republican benchmarks by roughly ten points among white men, white women, and college whites in particular. Many of those not with Trump are unsure or voting third-party rather than Clinton.
CBS

  • Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 3 points in the presidential election among Texas voters.
  • The Trump lead of 3 percent is statistically significant.
  • Since 2000, no Republican presidential candidiate has failed to carry Texas by less than 11 percent points.
University of Houston

Yes, yes it will more than likely amount to nothing:

Comes now Jim Henson, head of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas in Austin, along with his colleague, Joshua Blank, to throw a few pitchers of cold water on the prospect.

“While the trend line in Texas presidential polling certainly justifies this speculation, there are good reasons not to go too far down the road toward speculating … Texas turning blue,” the two of them wrote.

In a “back-of-the-envelope thought experiment,” they sifted through past voting performance, current voter registration figures and other political juju and concluded that a Clinton victory in the state is awfully darned unlikely.

“There is good reason to believe that polling is finding Texas leaning Republican rather than the solid Republican state it has been in presidential elections for most of the last three decades,” they concluded. “But the change in its tilt doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ready to fall the other direction without still more shaking at the foundations.”
LA Times

But it's still kind of fun to see anyways.
 

Envelope

sealed with a kiss
Hillary Clinton holds a three-point lead over Donald Trump in Florida, while in Texas – a state that has voted Republican by wide margins in recent years – Trump leads by a mere three points

uhhh what's with the phrasing?
 
uhhh what's with the phrasing?
Florida has long been a battleground and leading there is whatever. Them being within a margin of error for each other there is not shocking.

Texas is a Republican stronghold and having a three point lead there is only "merely" leading and pretty pathetic. Hillary being within a margin of error there is shocking for Trump.
 

Envelope

sealed with a kiss
oh so it's the difference from the expected baseline for those states, not the actual value that makes this a big deal? cool

sorry i don't know too much about which states tend to swing which way other than that cali and NY will always be blue so i don't need to worry
 

Gattsu25

Banned
uhhh what's with the phrasing?

Isn't that the entire point of this thread? Florida can be considered a swing state. Texas, at least up until this election, has not been for 30 years. So the fact that Republicans winning Texas within the margin of error is very significant whereas Florida being a toss-up is standard.
 
I dont get it

Non hispanic white are at 45% of the population. How is he leading in the first place?
Texas GOP historically did a better job with Hispanic outreach unlike the National and other state GOP.

oh so it's the difference from the expected baseline for those states, not the actual value that makes this a big deal? cool

sorry i don't know too much about which states tend to swing which way other than that cali and NY will always be blue so i don't need to worry


Yup. It's exactly like if CA and NY is close right now.
 

rjinaz

Member
oh so it's the difference from the expected baseline for those states, not the actual value that makes this a big deal? cool

sorry i don't know too much about which states tend to swing which way other than that cali and NY will always be blue so i don't need to worry

Exactly right. Trump only winning Texas of all places by 3 points makes it a possible swing state and it shouldn't be. This is horrible news for Trump. Florida has been a swing state for a while now so its not so surprising, maybe a bit disappointing for the Clinton camp though.
 
It's worth noting that Hillary's campaign made a small ad buy last week.

But how much is Clinton investing in Texas? Her campaign won't comment, but a small ad buy would suggest the campaign isn't expecting to move the needle in the country's largest Republican stronghold.

By mid-day Tuesday, Clinton's campaign had booked ads in Texas worth at most $100,000, according to a GOP source briefed on local television sales. That figure is small in any state, but the prohibitively expensive media markets in Texas further diminishes the campaign's bang for its buck.

Comparatively speaking, Clinton's camp will spend $2 million in Arizona, another traditionally Republican state.
"It takes millions of dollars to drive a single message across those markets," said national GOP media consultant Erik Potholm in an email. "If they are running $100k in those cities, it’s just a media hit, not designed to actually move voters."
Texas Tribune

The media markets in Texas are notoriously expensive, but considering the campaign basically has money pouring out of their ears in comparison to Trump, it'd be interesting to see if they end up buying any more ad time.
 

Biske

Member
Live shot of GOP headquarters:

npKt6xa.gif
 
It's worth noting that Hillary's campaign made a small ad buy last week.



Texas Tribune

The media markets in Texas are notoriously expensive, but considering the campaign basically has money pouring out of their ears in comparison to Trump, it'd be interesting to see if they end up buying any more ad time.
They should start seeding Texas to accelerate its purpling.
 

JP_

Banned
I dont get it

Non hispanic white are at 45% of the population. How is he leading in the first place?

Consider the 2014 midterm elections, when less than 2.3 million Texas Hispanics reported in U.S. Census surveys that they were registered to vote — about 46 percent of the nearly 4.9 million that were eligible and about 300,000 fewer than reported being registered in 2012. Turnout in 2014 was worse than 2012: 22 percent of eligible Texas Hispanics voted compared to 39 percent. Nationwide, 48 percent of Hispanics reported voting in 2012, which declined to 27 percent in 2014.

That untapped electorate helps explain how, even though a majority of the state’s residents will be Hispanic by around 2030, Texas has grown increasingly conservative. No Democrat has won statewide office here since 1994, the country’s longest political losing streak.

Only about 50% of eligible hispanics registered to vote and those that register have pretty low turnout.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...88a14c-5b23-11e6-8b48-0cb344221131_story.html
 
Texas GOP historically did a better job with Hispanic outreach unlike the National and other state GOP.




Yup. It's exactly like if CA and NY is close right now.
truth, then Governor W. Bush had a close relationship with them and had the highest support among Hispanics for Republican Presidential candidate breaking 40% in 2004

W was also more aligned with Reagan and Papa Bush on immigration than the post Newt Gingrinch nutters
 

Biske

Member
They are absolutely freaking out right now. When Karl Rove says it's over this early, it's over.

Things have definitely taken a turn.

Never thought I would see the day when watching Karl Rove on Fox News Sunday would give me hope. But here we are.

Its fun to pull up electoral college maps and flip all the states you can to try and make Trump win. Takes a lot.


Then you read a nice tweet like this exchange with Reince about how they were supposed to deal with things after 2012.. and its just fun and games.

http://https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/790228650968944640

 

RDreamer

Member
The media markets in Texas are notoriously expensive, but considering the campaign basically has money pouring out of their ears in comparison to Trump, it'd be interesting to see if they end up buying any more ad time.

As much as turning Texas blue would be amazing, I'd rather they spend that pile of cash in strategic spots where they can win back the Senate and possibly the House with a push of big voter turnout.
 
Although it leans republican, Texas has a pretty strong democratic base that has been building. The real change won't come until a few more elections I would imagine.
 

Diablos

Member
uhhh what's with the phrasing?
Texas shouldn't be within the margin of error. TX is for Republicans like CA is for Democrats. If it's that close, even if Trump still wins narrowly there, it speaks volumes towards how shitty of a candidate he is.
 
if texas ever does go blue, would that basically be the permanent end for republicans in the white house? They would have to start taking a bunch of northern states to compensate
 
538 is a bit more pessimistic: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/texas/#plus

Chance of winning: Clinton 12.8% vs Trump 87.2%
Projected vote share: Clinton 43.3% vs Trump 49.7%
I stated in the OP that it's unlikely for Trump to lose the state even with these polls.

Even if we use 538's numbers, it's still embarrassing (and a portent for changing demographics) if Trump sees his win at only 6ish% instead of the standard 11%+ from years past.
As much as turning Texas blue would be amazing, I'd rather they spend that pile of cash in strategic spots where they can win back the Senate and possibly the House with a push of big voter turnout.
Sure. There are probably more important places to spend money for results this cycle.

That said, spending some money in Texas working on "get out the vote" programs could be important for future Democrat possibilities there.
 
if texas ever does go blue, would that basically be the permanent end for republicans in the white house? They would have to start taking a bunch of northern states to compensate

When that ever happens, the Midwest minus IL and MN would have turned red by then. But it also means that GA, NC and to a lesser extent, SC would be blue by then. AZ and the entire southwest minus Idaho would be blue as well.
 
When that ever happens, the Midwest minus IL and MN would have turned red by then. But it also means that GA, NC and to a lesser extent, SC would be blue by then. AZ and the entire southwest minus Idaho would be blue as well.
In fairness, we're assuming standard trendlines. The world is unpredictable and thinks could accelerate or even reverse those trends.

That's probably why it's good to build and take opportunities to expand your base in a state when a chance presents itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom